Without monarchy, humanity fails, just look at the censorship in NorthAmerica.

While the EU faces demographic aging, we face a president that dopes up every day, a mafia controlled politics and a media that is incapable of truth.

Monarchies have a chance to uphold truth.

9/11? Russians in Canada- Thompson mafia. Johnathon Thompson was paid 600 children in Delphi one month after 9/11 as a reward. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Carla Thompson lives in Washington, DC, and was paid 200 children in Delphi one month after 9/11.

The Clintons couldn't handle the scandals they made in the news, and sought to use Echelon electronics to clamp down the freedom of people in North America.

It continues today, as Obama's supporters are Russian.

We need to end Russia pretending it isn't engaged in electronic warfare that sems science fiction. They will destroy our lives and the wealth spinoff that Royal concentration of wealth protects us all from.

Ronald Reagan could have made Glasnost and Perestroika something more sinister, but he didn't save us from cold, non-human behaviour, he just bought us all time by causing over- productioon to humble the USSR. Communism isn't on the left and right scale, that is a concept of Russian propaganda.

Yes, there was a referendum to ratify the 1978 Constitution which was approved by a large margin. This Constitution stated that Spain was a kingdom and Juan Carlos I the head of state. So yes, the monarchy was approved by the electorate.

Children of the Spanish sovereign are known as "infante" or "infanta" and are addressed as "Your Royal Highness". The terms "prince " and "princess" are not used in Spain except when referring to the heir to the throne who is an "infante" known as "The Prince of the Asturias".

The Spanish Bourbons are like a curse. They arrived in Spain in 1700) thanks to a disastrous (for Spain and France, mainly) international war (1702-14), which, in Spain, also became a sort of civil war, for some Spaniards supported the Austrian Habsbourgs while others supported the French Bourbons. (Most Catalans hate the Bourbons. No wonder, after 1714.)

The were dethroned by Napoleon in 1808 after they quarrelled with each other (King Charles IV vs. his own son, the Prince of Asturias, the Spanish equivalent of the Prinde of Wales) and debased themselves to an unbelievable level, literally selling their own country to Napoleon, who gave this throne to Joseph, his elder brother. But, thanks to Napoleon's problems in the Iberian peninsula, Russia and Germany and his final downfall they were able to go back in 1814. King Ferdinand VII (1808 and 1814-33), a cowardly, cruel and treacherous bastard, was the worst one of this dynasty.

They were dethroned again in 1868 after a revolution against corruption (alas, nothing new in Spain...150 years ago!) and injustice. It was called "la gloriosa", like the English Glorious one of 1688. But political problems, chaos and three civil and colonial wars (simultaneous in 1873!) took them again to Spain in 1874-75, thanks to a military coup d'état. King Alfonso XII was actually welcomed by many people who wanted peace at any cost and he was able to put an end to the Carlist War in 1876 and to the War in Cuba in 1878 and 1879-80.

They were dethroned again in 1931(they literally fled, like in 1868, but this time horrified by a possible 1917-like Russian revolution and an Ekaterinburg-like tragic end like that of 1918) and the Republican democratic parliament actually confiscated King Alfonso XIII's properties and declared he was a traitor and an a non-grata person in Spain. After the Spanish Civil War, thanks to Franco's dictatorship, Spain became a kingless monarchy again in 1947, and King Alfonso XIII's grandson, J.C., became Franco's heir in 1969 and king in 1975, after Franco died...

It would be like a bad joke, but it's too dramatic and pathetic for that. It's a curse, a true curse. Poor country. And a double Bourbon at that (Juan Carlos I of Bourbon and Bourbon), and not even a decent Jim Bean or Jack Daniels at that...

By"non-grata person" I obviously meant to say persona non grata. In fact it was even worse. Ex-King Alfonso XIII was legally deprived of his Spanish nationality and therefore was considered a foreigner and a traitor who could not even enter Spanish territory ("Privado de la paz jurídica, cualquier ciudadano español podrá aprehender su persona si penetrase en territorio nacional", i.e. being a traitor (high treason), any Spanish citizen could actually arrest him if he entered Spanish territory). He lived in Mussolini's Rome —where his grandson, the current king Juan Carlos was born— until he died.

After Juan Carlos became king he ordered his grandfather's remains to be taken to the Royal Pantheon at the Monastery of El Escorial —something not even Franco did— and he ordered the uniforms of the royal guard to be exactly like those of the time of his grandfather, and even an army brigade to bear his name, etc. The "revenge" of the Bourbons? "Here we are again, ruling our kingdom"? It really looks like it. Almost like King Charles II of England (and Scotland) after 1660, the French Bourbons after 1814-15 or King Ferdinand VII of Spain after 1814...

Beatrix does NOT descend from William of Orange, rather from his brother. There is no continuity in this family. And they are indeed almost entirely German, as was that 'saviour' Wilhelm von Nassau.
Moreover, having a king was abolished exactly by that revolt that is the basis of the Orange's claim to power. Monarchy was re-introduced by the dictator Napoleon, when he installed his brother.
Down with monarchy!

I will regard 'BOOOOOO!!' as a proof of my sound argument. Please note that I just stated known historical facts. Also I should be able to know these things as I studied Dutch early modern history. Anyone still in doubt about these facts please see 'The Dutch Republic' by Israel and 'Republicans' by Velema.
Truly, both politican currents during the Golden Age did not want a monarch, although the Orangists wanted a 'emminent head' for the union; but that stopped short of monarchy. Not even during the Orangist upheavals of 1672-73. Willem III became stadholder of the main Dutch provinces, and became King only in Great-Britain after his army conquered it more or less on request. Also please note that the Oranges were kicked out of office by internal upheavel that broke out well before the French Revolution, namely in 1780; only to be re-instated after Prussian intervention. For this see 'De Nederlandse revolutie' by Wagenaar.

Actually, Queen Beatrix is descended from both William of Orange and his brother, since Queen Beatrix is a direct descendant of John William Friso, Prince of Orange, who is descended in direct male line from John VI, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg (the aforementioned brother of William of Orange) and was descended from William of Orange ("William the Silent") from both his mother and his paternal grandmother (descendant of William of Orange's daughter from his 3rd marriage to Huguenot Louise de Coligny). He had succeeded his cousin King William III of England as Prince of Orange in 1702 and was stadtholder (a governor of sorts) of Friesland (a part of the Netherlands) at that time until his death.

I'm sorry but that's just not how medieval and early modern lineages work. These are those typical a posteriori 'family-bonds' that are forged to legitimate a claim. True enough, no grab for power came without a 'legitimate' claim. Just ask Louis XIV who could find just claims for just about any throne in Europe. Why is that? Because Kings and Princes where an incestuous breed. I can tell you that if the true Holy Roman laws of vassalage were followed, the Low Countries would never have come to be as in both the 14th and 15th century much of the provinces who came under the House of Bungundy would've had to go back under the direct rule of the Holy Roman Emperor. For this, see 'Magniamous Dukes' by Robert Stein (Leiden 2013). What mister Stein also writes, is that in the end not these issues of lineage where of greatest importance, but rather the wishes of the burghers, the nascent bourgeoisie. The Low Countries, notably Brabant, where as of the 13th century in the grips of what would now be called the 'middle class'. The bourgeoisie chose, either directly, or by influence, the next claimant if there would come to be an change of the reigning family.

Here in Spain many say that Franco left everything 'knotted and well knotted' before he died. In Spain, the two right wing dictatorships (Primo de Rivera’s from 1923 to 1931, and Franco’s from 1937 to 1975) backed and supported the Royal family. An again Histoty repeats itself with Juan Carlos I, whose popularity plummeted because of negligible behaviour, the same as back in 1923 when Alphonse XIII was held on the throne against the people’s will and despite his negligent command of the army during the Rif War in Africa (where 15,000 Spanish soldiers died stupidly).
So here is another striking difference from the Spanish monarchy to Dutch one.
Long ago, Juan Luis Cebrian, the editor from El Pais, said that the Royal House wouldn't resist one single editorial from his newspaper, an eloquent signal of all the theatrical work of hiding the truth about the king and his family, that the Spanish press has performed for ages.
At least, one has the relief to think that Juan Carlos's obstinay to hold on the seat will only help to erode more and more the monarchy's image towards the people. After all, and like his predecessor as Head of State, he's just another 'latin caudillo' pretending to die with the boots on.

The Spanish Bourbons are like a curse. They arrived in Spain (1700) thanks to a disastrous (for Spain and France, mainly) international war (1702-14), which, in Spain, also became a sort of civil war. Most Catalans hate them. No wonder, after 1714.

The were dethroned by Napoleon in 1808 after they quarrelled with each other and debased themselves to an unbelievable level, literally selling their own country. But, thanks to Napoleon's problems in the Iberian peninsula, Russia and Germany and his final downfall they were able to go back in 1814. King Ferdinand VII (1808 and 1814-33), a cowardly, cruel and treacherous bastard, was the worst one of this dynasty.

They were dethroned again in 1868 after a revolution against corruption (alas, nothing new in Spain...150 years ago!) and injustice. It was called "la gloriosa", like the English Glorious one of 1688. But political problems, chaos and three civil and colonial wars (simultaneous in 1873!) took them again to Spain in 1874-75, thanks to a military coup d'état.

They were dethroned again in 1931 for reasons you have already explained in your post (they literally fled, like in 1868, but this time horrified by a possible 1917-like Russian revolution and an Ekaterinburg-like tragic end in 1918) and the Republican democratic parliament actually confiscated King Alfonso XIII's properties and declared he was a traitor and an a non-grata person in Spain. After the Spanish Civil War, thanks to Franco's dictatorship, Spain became a kingless monarchy again in 1947, and King Alfonso XIII's grandson, J.C., became Franco's heir in 1969 and king in 1975, after Franco died...

It would be like a joke, but it's too dramatic and pathetic for that. It's a curse, a true curse. Poor country. And a double Bourbon at that (Juan Carlos I of Bourbon and Bourbon), and not even a decent Jim Bean or Jack Daniels at that...

I think it`s up to the king, but I do not think the present royal troubles are sufficient to claim his abdication. If he can navigate this troubled waters, I am sure he can recuperate his popularity. I am a big fan of the Spanish royal family and hope the see them as part of Spain for a long time.

TERCERA REPUBLICA YA! April 14 is coming up and The UNPOPULAR(PP) government should do something to abolish those BUMS.
I hail from Latin america. I hear all the time from Europeans that we are backwards. In terms of technology and all that, yes, but when it comes to government we are FAR more advance than Europe. Monarchies are so old-fashioned. The world should wake up and abolish all those stupid as useless monarchies.

Isn’t that the point? In a constitutional monarchy, the head of state is completely above party politics and so can maintain the dignity of the role without the messy executive responsibilities in which Messrs. Morales, Correa and Ms. Fernández involve themselves.

Of course, an elected president could perform the (constitutional) head of state role as in Germany or Italy with an executive prime minister but then you return to my argument in favour of constitutional monarchies as posted on 10/04/13.

Hi,
Should the Spanish king abdicate too? Yes. For whom the bell tolls. Queen Beatrix and the Spanish King are not to be compared. Queen Beatrix is a Queen and the Spanish King is just a king. However Holland will run into problems with the Queen Beatrix’s son William of Orange or as some say William of Plum. As you said the multimillion-dollar villa in Mozambique was sold but swapped for a villa in Greece and why not in Holland that has wonderful landscape. The open questions are will he “rain” from Greece?

off topic. It would be nice if the media stoped using terms like royalty/prince/queen since the idea of their blood being somehow different/better is just a superstition. I think Trust Fund Babies would be more apt.

I think TE has long neglegted its DUTY to keep us all informed about the 'hanky-panky' preoccupations of all the young and not-so-young European Royals. Like what's the latest news about the affairs of the former Royals of Greece, Italy, Serbia, Austria, Germany, Lichtenstein. Luxemburg, etc. etc. Of course, I am aware that writing about the British Royals is in bad taste. Wouldn't it make most of us happy just to know who are all the eligible, uncommitted, uncompromised European Royals ?

I am very impressed by the Dutch royal family, who somehow convince the populace that, despite their multiple palaces, art collections and Croesus level wealth, they are just an ordinary Dutch family who share the normal concerns and pleasures. Their rampant foibles just seem to reinforce this effect.

By the way, I shall remind the Dutch, once again that we await the Portuguese Crown Jewel Items which were stolen from a museum in Holland as well as the tax money Portuguese companies are now paying in the Netherlands to bail you out.

Finally, please stop changing the Wikipedia values for your external debt. (You and Ireland have a tendency to do that).

In a recent ITV documentary on UK TV, the Speaker of the House of Commons observed something along the lines of “if you were creating a country today, you wouldn’t include a monarch as head of state” with which I agree.

A constitutional monarchy is an anachronism but, by and large, it works, costs the same or less than a presidency and keeps the head of state above grubby party politics. And just thinking about the type of candidates for potential presidencies in current constitutional monarchies makes me shudder.

Royal family fortunes wax and wane and, unless there’s a tradition of abdication, my view is that the monarch has to die for the aura and credibility of the institution to be retained – as the then (crown) Princess Elizabeth said in her 21st birthday speech “I declare…that my whole life whether it be long or short be devoted to your service…”.

I would agree with what you say about a royal being above grubby politics. However I still wouldn't support a monarchy as lived.

On a visit to the UK I recall reading of the death of someone (a milord or similar) "who was 101 in line for the throne". Now, someone (paid for by the UK taxpayers?) was/is obviously keeping count of births, deaths and marriages. So how much does having a royalty really cost - whether Dutch, Spanish, UK or ...?

uk govt only pays for 4 royal offices, so just staff, official travel and security. not paid salary, or residences [except buckingham palace]
1. queen and d.of edinburgh
2. prince charles and camilla
3. pr william and kate, and pr harry
4. pr. andrew and daughters

no taxpayer money for 5th in line or lower

similar arrangement as republic
for president + few ex-presidents
w/salary and pension.

As a Brit – albeit based outside the UK – I would suggest this is an example of “British humour”! After all, why stop at 101?
More seriously, I can assure you, as kayshri81 notes, that there is no-one paid by central or local government charged with keeping track of the order of succession but it is the type of amusing detail which the deceased person’s family might have publicised.
If you are interested in the more eccentric aspects of British life with regard to the monarchy, there is an excellent example in the TV documentary I cited (“Our Queen”, viewable online) which features a retired insurance broker who – manually, as a hobby – collates the appointments of all members of the royal family which appear in the Court Circular in order to produce a sort of productivity ranking which is then published each year as a letter in “The Times”. Now that’s what I call devotion to duty!

The UK monarchy costs around 40-something million Pounds (2009), somewhat the same as Bill Gates spend on Leonardo Da Vinci's Codex Leicester, but that number excludes duchies and security. Their costs have been cut down to 30 million pounds in the last few years.
The Dutch all-in costs of the monarchy are around 113 million Euros (2008), which is roughly equal to Mitt Romney's fundraising for the campaign of 2008.

These two families combined cost about the same as the inauguration of Obama in 2011.
It is about as expensive as a president.

OK, the king is a married man, so it's twitchy on that score, but these are royals - they play by a different set of rules. If a 75-year-old guy is having some fun on the side, 60-something me says - Bravo!